boring ass third act, like all villenueveveveeveveveve slop
>His hair is perfect
has absolutely nothing to do with what makes a film good or not. >he plays a young autistic detective quite well
he’s clearly not young
This was a good movie but I remember it doing that thing that mystery stories usually do where a lot of it they are perusing red herrings and then all of the sudden the real threat presents itself for no reason.
Otherwise I liked it
>I can't hurt him anymore without killing him
This always stood out to me as bad writing. There's more ways to torture someone with pain than bludgeoning them in the fricking head. Take out his fingernails, use that hammer you threatened him with to start breaking small bones etc...
The line is made even dumber by the shower box he built because obviously scalding water fricking hurts and can also kill you.
He's not some secret badass like Liam Neeson in Taken, he's a suburban dad who dabbles in prepperism and carpentry. It takes a lot of nerve to intentionally torture someone and/or disfigure them for life. Most would be like the Terence Howard character. The hammer scene was a good representation of the restraint that even your ballsiest average guy might have.
He beat his face to a pile of ground beef and only stopped for fear of killing him before he got the info, don't give me that bullshit about nerve. Most people in his situation would move their focus to the body, just start punching him in the gut or something.
Again your arguments are all discarded when it comes to the fact that he built a fricking torture box. He made it just short and narrow enough that he couldn't stand sit or kneel comfortably so he couldn't rest, he sealed him in pitch darkness and used water torture at random intervals (water torture that could also potentially disfigure him btw). Literal CIA tactics.
Punching someone is one thing. Taking a hammer to them is another. It's brutally personal and gruesome as frick. I don't think the writing was bad at all in terms of what your average vengeful father would realistically be capable of.
Your average vengeful father would find other ways to hurt him without killing him. Somewhere in between "hurr durr punch him in da face" and "CIA tested and proven torture box designed to cause insanity via extreme and constant discomfort.
It's just a corny and poorly written line of dialogue. Even the first time I watched the movie and was totally engrossed that took me out of it for a moment. I literally said out loud "you could try not hitting him in the fricking head" when he said that line and 2 people near me laughed.
He's not some secret badass like Liam Neeson in Taken, he's a suburban dad who dabbles in prepperism and carpentry. It takes a lot of nerve to intentionally torture someone and/or disfigure them for life. Most would be like the Terence Howard character. The hammer scene was a good representation of the restraint that even your ballsiest average guy might have.
I took this line to mean “If I have to torture this autistic moron one more time only to get more insane answers, then I’m going to snap and kill him” rather than the victim actually being at risk of being killed from already sustained injuries.
She was holding that little pistol loose as frick when she was guiding Jackman out toward the hole, I thought for sure he would lunge at her. But the ending with the whistle is pretty good.
Gyllenhaal
/thread
His hair is perfect and he plays a young autistic detective quite well, what's your problem bro?
boring ass third act, like all villenueveveveeveveveve slop
>His hair is perfect
has absolutely nothing to do with what makes a film good or not.
>he plays a young autistic detective quite well
he’s clearly not young
>he’s clearly not young
He was 33 in 2013. That's young as frick for a detective.
That's why Zodiac is kino.
You just get to watch him shuffle paperwork around for 3 hours.
>Revenge is bad.
Frick off.
is bad
>hmmmm yeessss we’ll just kill random kids for the devil because FRICK GOD for giving our kid cancer or something
Frick off fedoralord
This was a good movie but I remember it doing that thing that mystery stories usually do where a lot of it they are perusing red herrings and then all of the sudden the real threat presents itself for no reason.
Otherwise I liked it
>a lot of it they are perusing red herrings
>Otherwise I liked it
But red herrings are the best moments
It doesn't really benefit from a rewatch, in fact it's biggest strengths are dulled more and more with each rewatch.
Like Breaking Bad.
Yeah I'd say that's accurate.
It takes too long to establish something simple
>I can't hurt him anymore without killing him
This always stood out to me as bad writing. There's more ways to torture someone with pain than bludgeoning them in the fricking head. Take out his fingernails, use that hammer you threatened him with to start breaking small bones etc...
The line is made even dumber by the shower box he built because obviously scalding water fricking hurts and can also kill you.
He's not some secret badass like Liam Neeson in Taken, he's a suburban dad who dabbles in prepperism and carpentry. It takes a lot of nerve to intentionally torture someone and/or disfigure them for life. Most would be like the Terence Howard character. The hammer scene was a good representation of the restraint that even your ballsiest average guy might have.
He beat his face to a pile of ground beef and only stopped for fear of killing him before he got the info, don't give me that bullshit about nerve. Most people in his situation would move their focus to the body, just start punching him in the gut or something.
Again your arguments are all discarded when it comes to the fact that he built a fricking torture box. He made it just short and narrow enough that he couldn't stand sit or kneel comfortably so he couldn't rest, he sealed him in pitch darkness and used water torture at random intervals (water torture that could also potentially disfigure him btw). Literal CIA tactics.
Punching someone is one thing. Taking a hammer to them is another. It's brutally personal and gruesome as frick. I don't think the writing was bad at all in terms of what your average vengeful father would realistically be capable of.
Your average vengeful father would find other ways to hurt him without killing him. Somewhere in between "hurr durr punch him in da face" and "CIA tested and proven torture box designed to cause insanity via extreme and constant discomfort.
It's just a corny and poorly written line of dialogue. Even the first time I watched the movie and was totally engrossed that took me out of it for a moment. I literally said out loud "you could try not hitting him in the fricking head" when he said that line and 2 people near me laughed.
you forgot your last " quote
how am i to read this
Damn, disregard every single thing I said I guess.
i have to, i can't misunderstand or misconstrue your point
Of course!
I took this line to mean “If I have to torture this autistic moron one more time only to get more insane answers, then I’m going to snap and kill him” rather than the victim actually being at risk of being killed from already sustained injuries.
That's some nice retrospective headcanon but the way that line was delivered makes it blatantly clear what he meant.
Im not disagreeing what the movie intention was, that was my genuine interpretation of the what he said when I first watched the movie
>Turns out gandma did it
>Grandma defeats Hugh Jackman
moronic fricking movie.
She was holding that little pistol loose as frick when she was guiding Jackman out toward the hole, I thought for sure he would lunge at her. But the ending with the whistle is pretty good.
>somehow the sniffing police dog didn't find a single thing
BULLSHIT
I don't recall a dog ever being brought to the grannies property
Presumably, they brought it to where the RV was at the beginning of the movie, which as at the grandmas house, right?
Nah that wasn't her house she lived in a pretty secluded area. He was just randomly parked there at the beginning iirc
they would have heard the whistle
ruined the whole movie